Space Shuttle Flies Today

[shadron]

An aircraft can last forever with enough maintenance. I met a B-52 pilot who was flying the same plane his great-grandfather flew at the end of his career

I beg to differ. Like the "Wonderful One-Hoss Shay", even with all due maintenance, there is ultimately metal fatigue in the most basic structures of the airframe. Unless you class total rebuild at twice the replacement cost as maintenance, eventually it will simply wear out, or, more likely, become too risky to use. Small, even microscopic chips in the insulating tiles will eventually doom then all to replacement, which could cost more than the original craft. As stated by someone else, the B-52 faces much smaller physical challenges than the shuttle does.

The failure modes in the shuttle are far too often catastophic. Maintenance cannot alleviate that problem.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That video of our laser-powered climber even counts amongst these (for reasons other than the space elevator).

You've made frequent references to the space elevator and this comment makes me wonder if you've ever met Michael Lane. Hopefully you're not him and/or don't work for his company, LiftPort.

In the spring of 2005 I got involved in a lengthy discussion about the space elevator. In the course of that I started researching Liftport. It was quite amusing as everything looked very dodgy about that company. Off the top of my head I recall that the company accepted "donations" via Laine's paypal account; all their press releases were heavily spun, such as making it sound like they had major government involvement when it appeared the FAA had simply issued them a permit to fly a balloon; I corresponded with one person who owned stock in the company the the stock sale seemed to be "informal" to the point that it made me wonder if it was legal; and Laine only appeared to be associated with two people who really knew anything about the science of space elevators and they were both gone from the company and one was apparently on very bad terms with Laine.

The most entertaining part of it was when they announced they were going to open a carbon nanotube factory. They were a company whose product line consisted of posters, t-shirts and printed coffe mugs and they were just going to "branch out" in to carbon nanotubes. I followed that project off and on for a year, including corresponding with a member of the Millville city council and driving by the alleged factory on two occasions. Last I check they were still looking to accept "pre-orders" for a product they appeared to have no chance of actually producing.

I never met Laine himself and wondered if he comes across as a scam artist or someone with a mission or what. Do you have any firsthand experience with these guys?

 

[Jimbo07]

I never met Laine himself and wondered if he comes across as a scam artist or someone with a mission or what. Do you have any firsthand experience with these guys?

I have never met him, although he has been associated with Spaceward. Our team knows much more about power beaming than some of these guys (and, if I may boast, pretty much anyone else). Before I left the team in April (I've moved to another province), we had discussed forming a business, but nobody (myself included) had dreamed up a business model at that time. It remains a university group, and any business spin-off will now be up to the gang, not me.

I personally (that is, not speaking for USST or any other organization) feel that Liftport was more website than genuine technology. However, I also (again personally) do not believe that he is the outright scam artist that some people are making him out to be. What little I know of him suggests that his heart is in the right place. On the plus side, he has made some positive statements to the effect that building a space elevator will involve more than technology and that people should be looking at legal, social and other issues. I'll leave that for others...

ETA: I'll necessarily be a little guarded in talking about this for a few reasons:
i) Obviously, I'm now six months out of date on the system itself
ii) I still regard some of the senior team members as friends (see Facebook )
iii) I'm trying not to write off my involvement totally, in case there's a way I can make a tangible contribution in the future (that is, by the way I drafted the (Student Union mandated) group's constitution, I'm still eligible to be a member of the team)
iv) etc.

Cheers!

 

[dahduh]

While it costs $10,000 a kilo to loft something into orbit, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to waste payload space on bags of protoplasm and water.

NASA's primary mission should have been to bring down the cost per kilo (hey, even NASA's gone metric), and this means a cheapo heavy lifter in the 100 tonne range. What NASA delivered was a reusable space shuttle that uses up 90% of the useful payload. Since it costs $10,000 per kilo of shuttle every time they launch it, I guess NASA made it really really expensive to make it worth while bringing back. Most of the time.

Ok, so Bush woke up one morning with a woody dreaming that he was Kennedy, and sayeth: "Make me a ship to take man (and women) to Mars". Like God unto Noah, he neglected to provide a budget. But this did not discourage NASA; they scampered off and in the space of a few months produced Ares I and Ares V. According to NASA, what's needed is two launchers; Ares I for men, and Ares V for mere non-sentient stuff. You see, a $2bn satellite that's taken 6 years to build isn't as important as a man (or a woman), so you can leave off some safety features. Which ones? Errrm... well anyway, see the launcher that launches man (or woman) is super-safe, the launch stage consisting of a single solid-fuel booster from the space shuttle, re-using existing technology and saving the taxpayer money, woo-hoo!

Now Elon Musk of SpaceX wants to launch satellites really cheaply and realiably, and he did a bit of investigation on historical failure modes. It seems solid fuel boosters fail the most often; they burn through, or the hydraulic power used for steering runs out before the burn is complete. So SpaceX figures the optimal safe/cheap design is a stubby liquid fuel booster with lots of engines, and that is what they are building, and that is what NASA has contracted to service the IIS when the shuttle is de-comissioned.

But back to Ares I! This cool machine is not just any old 4-segment shuttle booster! Oh no, this is a five segment booster! It burns longer and hotter, but not to worry, the extra O-ring they bunged in when Challenger blew up will make it safe! Oh, and because it's long and skinny, and the rocket is crested with a big bulbulous second stage and man (and woman)-worthy accommodation, it will want to fly ass-forward; but never mind, there will be a super-duper active control system to keep it stable! Gosh, folks, let's hope it doesn't experience an unexpected instability and run out of hydraulic power! Oh, and because its longer we're going to have to scrap all those barges and things we transport the things on; oh, and the gantries. Oh, and make that space-shuttle tank for the Ares V a meter bigger in diameter will you? I'm sure re-tooling won't be a problem.

Folks, NASA appears to have lost the plot - again. See http://www.directlauncher.com for a critique of NASA's proposal for the space shuttle replacement. It makes interesting reading, even if the critics may have their own agenda.

As for the space elevator: Laine of SpacePort appears to be a nut-case. But the concept appears to be sound (see www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/annual/jun02/521Edwards.pdf), if the strength data on nanotubes pans out and can be realized by some fabrication technology. Why NASA isn't putting a lot more money into developing this is a mystery; even if the space elevator turns out to be impractical it will surely have plenty of other applications in aerospace. But I must say, riding up on a space elevator would be a bit like swapping a jet for a banana boat; it may be 1,000 time cheaper, but it would take a long time and you would be a bit stinky at the other end.

In the meantime, man (and woman) is heroically circling the earth in the IIS, conducting yet another experiment in how quickly calcium leeches from human bone when it hasn't got gravity to keep it there. We've done that, guys. All we really want to know is what sex is like in zero-g. C'mon, we know you've done it...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

However, I also (again personally) do not believe that he is the outright scam artist that some people are making him out to be. What little I know of him suggests that his heart is in the right place.

I was going to ask who those "some people" are because no one seemed to be questioning him a couple years ago. But a fresh search on the subject turns up a lot of trouble for Laine. Apparently some regulators agree about what I said about his "informal" stock sales.

http://www.spaceelevator.com/archives/2007/05/liftport_tries.html

And Laine's rebuttal to a wide variety of complaints about his company:

http://www.tropicalcoder.com/LiftPortRebuttal.htm

 

[Michael Redman]

The real knowledge learned by the SS/ISS experience (and MIR and Skylab) isn't how ants or blobs of water react to weightlessness, it's how people do. Robots will never teach us what it's like to work in space, how to build something, or how to put out a fire. Or how to pee. That exploration requires a human presence.

I doubt that the pioneering of humans spaceflight is going to be taken over by private entities until well in the future, after publicly funded entities have worked out a whole lot more of the problems, and perhaps not even then. Very little of our earthbound transportation infrastructure was developed without public finance, and little of it can exist today without it. I can see the same limitations applying in space.

Someday there will be private economic opportunity in space, and there will be people living in space to exploit that opportunity. Maybe I'm wrong, and there will be large profitable opportunities identified relatively soon that would warrant the tremendous private investment necessary to jump right out there and go after it. But I'm guessing that we're going to explore and open up space the old fashioned way.

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay, everyone, once again I've used magic... err technology... to conjure something up! Go check out my Spaceflight Cage Match.

 

[rats]

A couple of quick additions to the off-OP debate...

The Apollo astronauts were darn lucky not to get fried by solar storms. See here for discussion.

The Helium 3 mining on the moon thing is unfounded. See page 88 for a couple of short paragraphs on why (it's actually quite an interesting report, too).

Despite all this, I personally think developing human spaceflight is a wonderful enterprise. Unfortunately the pot of money isn't currently large enough to do that AND continue with real science effectively in the USA and Europe.

 

[uruk]

I have acouple of quick responses here before we take this to jimbo's duke-out thread.

A couple of quick additions to the off-OP debate...

The Apollo astronauts were darn lucky not to get fried by solar storms. See here for discussion.

NASA knew about the radiation hazzards as did the astronauts. NASA did have a solar flare contignecy plan:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

It amounted to aiming the back end of the command capsule to the strongest source of the radiation allowing the fuel and the mass of the spacecraft to provide as much shielding (if any) as possible.
All astronauts know that they are risking illness, sterility, and death due to radiation. It is a risk they willingly take.

The Helium 3 mining on the moon thing is unfounded. See page 88 for a couple of short paragraphs on why (it's actually quite an interesting report, too).

Very intesting, But I guess the H3 question depends on who you talk to.

Despite all this, I personally think developing human spaceflight is a wonderful enterprise. Unfortunately the pot of money isn't currently large enough to do that AND continue with real science effectively in the USA and Europe.

I agree for the most part. It would be a shame to let go of the manned space program.
Especially now that other countries are getting involved.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or at least cut back; I think that some manned repair missions will always be necessary.

Why? Given the cost of manned space flight (especially low-volume flight where you don't have economies of scale), simply replacing the few sattelites which break may be cheaper than repairing them.

Nothing beats having a human there with imediate problem solving abilities. It takes the Mars rovers a week to do what a man can do in a few hours.

Sure, but the Mars rover can keep working for years, apparently. If you've got more time, it doesn't matter if it takes longer.

Manned spaceflight is a logistical nightmare, but much can be learned in the endevour.

Primarily about how to do manned space flight. Everything else is better off with robots, because they're so much cheaper, much more durable, and best of all, expendable.

 

[uruk]

Why? Given the cost of manned space flight (especially low-volume flight where you don't have economies of scale), simply replacing the few sattelites which break may be cheaper than repairing them.

Earth orbit is on it's way to becoming dangerously crowded with junk. Everything from Ed White's glove to obsolete 3 ton satellites and a few odds and ends. It's actually starting to be a concern because of the relative velocities involved.
http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/satellite/4/4a/4a.1.html

The idea is to get space travel to a point where economies of scale come into play.
And you gotta start sometime. If not now when? If you keep waiting you could fall into the "buying-the-latest-computer" trap. (i.e. I have a brother who keeps waiting for the latest computer to come out. Whenever a new computer comes out he says he'll wait for the better one to come out. Unfortunately he still has his old piece-of-crap computer)

We've been doing robotic exploraration of our solarsystem since the 50's and have never stopped since. We did one big jump to the moon (nine actually if you count the circumnavigations) and then nothing for nearly thirty years. Now that weve been stepping back out onto the porch people are whining now.
Doesn't seem fair.

Sure, but the Mars rover can keep working for years, apparently. If you've got more time, it doesn't matter if it takes longer.

The Mars rovers have been functioning superbly long after thier expected life spans. (even with one having a busted wheel.)
But you still have thier functions limited by thier design. Absolutely no resourcefullness or thinking in realtime or on site. No abiltiy to do impromptu or ad hoc exploration.

Primarily about how to do manned space flight. Everything else is better off with robots, because they're so much cheaper, much more durable, and best of all, expendable.

Well if science for science sake is so acceptable why not manned exploration? There is no more practical benefit of having a couple of rovers rooting around on Mars than a couple of guys watching ants flipping around in zero G on the ISS.

You are also forgetting about the other spin off benefits offerd by the endevour. Check out NASA's Spinoffs publications and NASA's techbriefs.

It is sad that NASA's paltry budget is making an issue of it.
It would be a shame to abandon manned spaceflight altogether.

 

[Ziggurat]

Earth orbit is on it's way to becoming dangerously crowded with junk. Everything from Ed White's glove to obsolete 3 ton satellites and a few odds and ends.

So? You can still ditch a broken satellite. And repairing a satellite probably presents a bigger risk of creating loose junk than ditching it does.

The idea is to get space travel to a point where economies of scale come into play.

All the more reason to push robots. They're cheaper, so we can hit those economies of scale much sooner.

We've been doing robotic exploraration of our solarsystem since the 50's and have never stopped since. We did one big jump to the moon (nine actually if you count the circumnavigations) and then nothing for nearly thirty years. Now that weve been stepping back out onto the porch people are whining now.
Doesn't seem fair.

It's not fair. But so what? The fact is, those mars rovers are doing what no man is capable of doing. Fairness shouldn't be a consideration.

The Mars rovers have been functioning superbly long after thier expected life spans. (even with one having a busted wheel.)
But you still have thier functions limited by thier design.

So? They were cheap. Cheaper than manned missions by orders of magnitude. The cost savings means that you don't need to provide it lots of fancy functionality: if there's something a person could do that this robot couldn't, and you wish it could, just give the next robot that capability, and you still saved money.

Absolutely no resourcefullness or thinking in realtime or on site.

Doesn't matter. Without life support requirements, we can afford for it to be far slower.

Well if science for science sake is so acceptable why not manned exploration?

Because we can learn more about everything except the effects of zero G on the human body by using robots instead.

There is no more practical benefit of having a couple of rovers rooting around on Mars than a couple of guys watching ants flipping around in zero G on the ISS.

Maybe no more "practical benefit", but far less scientific benefit.

You are also forgetting about the other spin off benefits offerd by the endevour. Check out NASA's Spinoffs publications and NASA's techbriefs.

What, you don't think you can get spinoffs with robots? I think you're likely to get more spinoffs from that nowdays than you are from working with astronauts.

 

[uruk]

So? You can still ditch a broken satellite. And repairing a satellite probably presents a bigger risk of creating loose junk than ditching it does.

Actually it would be better to figgure away to de-orbit them so that what's left hits an ocean or desert. Then recover and recycle (if you want). Leaving it in orbit just compounds the problem and increases the probablity of a collision with a probe exiting orbit or another satellite parking into orbit.

All the more reason to push robots. They're cheaper, so we can hit those economies of scale much sooner.

We've never stopped sending probes since the fiftties. It's getting cheaper to send probes, but what about making manned spaceflight cheaper? How do you intend to do that just sending probes up?

It's not fair. But so what? The fact is, those mars rovers are doing what no man is capable of doing. Fairness shouldn't be a consideration.

The fairness comment was an emotional argumnet. My point being that space exploration by probes have never stopped but we've had a big gap in manned flight. When do we give manned flight an oppurtunity to develop again? Never? wait for the next century or the next?
Wait for the next development in manned space technology to develop? How can that new technology or innovation happen unless we work toward it now?

If you argue that there is no purpose in having a man up there, then what is the purpose of having nice pictures of Saturn? What is the purpose having two rovers on Mars drilling holes in rocks? What the purpose of sending a glorified camera to Pluto? ( yea, I know there's more on the probe that just an optical camera)

So? They were cheap. Cheaper than manned missions by orders of magnitude. The cost savings means that you don't need to provide it lots of fancy functionality: if there's something a person could do that this robot couldn't, and you wish it could, just give the next robot that capability, and you still saved money.

Doesn't matter. Without life support requirements, we can afford for it to be far slower.

Artifical intellegence is still very far off. You still have the limitation of your thinking part being several light minuets or hours away.

I am not denying that robots are cheaper. I'm saying that manned space flight deserves chance to develop also.

Because we can learn more about everything except the effects of zero G on the human body by using robots instead.

Exploration is not the sole purpose of manned flight, there is also exploitation.

There's more to it than just learning about the effects of zero G on the human body. There is pushing our capabilty to survive and thrive in that harsh environment. Opening up the solar system to oppurtunities for us expand and live and exploit resources beyond this sole world. And all the benefits we can gain from doing those things. All the understanding, the innovations, the technologies.
History is replete with examples of what we gain (good or bad) when we push ourselves to those challenges.

Robots will only give us a single aspect to explore that. Sure it's cheaper and safer. But think about what we loose just limiting ourselves to doing just that.

Maybe no more "practical benefit", but far less scientific benefit.

It's not just about the science only. You have to admit that you get something more from t looking at that picture of Saturns rings or reading through the data concerning the xray output of Jupiter than just scientific edification.

Science for science sake has it's place. (and I am not knocking it, in fact I love it) But to say in the same breath that manned space exploration/exploitation does not? I find it disingenuous.

What, you don't think you can get spinoffs with robots? I think you're likely to get more spinoffs from that nowdays than you are from working with astronauts.

I never implied that you can't or that we don't. But there are spinoffs that we get from manned flight that we wouldn't have otherwise. Look at all the stuff the Apollo program gave us. Yep, including Tang.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually it would be better to figgure away to de-orbit them so that what's left hits an ocean or desert.

That's what I mean by ditch. Leaving them in orbit is abandoning them.

We've never stopped sending probes since the fiftties. It's getting cheaper to send probes, but what about making manned spaceflight cheaper? How do you intend to do that just sending probes up?

We don't have cheap mass lift capability right now. Cheaper, maybe, but not cheap. Not by a long shot. Even if you can manufacture the vehicle for manned flight cheaply (and we can't), the simple per-pound price of putting anything into space is still huge, and will remains so for some time. The best way to bring it down is to get more practice putting more pounds into space. And we can put more pounds into space more cheaply, with more payoff, with robots than with manned vehicles.

My point being that space exploration by probes have never stopped but we've had a big gap in manned flight. When do we give manned flight an oppurtunity to develop again?

When they have a purpose which can't be accomplished with robots which is worth spending the price premium on.

If you argue that there is no purpose in having a man up there, then what is the purpose of having nice pictures of Saturn?

We are learning things about Saturn. The only thing we learn from putting men in space is what happens to men in space. Where's the excitement in that?

Artifical intellegence is still very far off. You still have the limitation of your thinking part being several light minuets or hours away.

Again, so what? When you have the ability to take your time, it doesn't matter if it takes time.

I am not denying that robots are cheaper. I'm saying that manned space flight deserves chance to develop also.

And yet, that's not what's happened. We've sunk billions on spending the shuttle into space again and again, and frankly, it's done very little. Manned space flight hasn't developed much since the 70's.

Exploration is not the sole purpose of manned flight, there is also exploitation.

Which will probably be done by robots first.

Robots will only give us a single aspect to explore that. Sure it's cheaper and safer. But think about what we loose just limiting ourselves to doing just that.

It's hardly a limit. In fact, robots have already shown that we can push the limit much further than we can with manned exploration. For the cost of a manned mission to Mars, think of how many moons of Jupiter you could explore.

It's not just about the science only. You have to admit that you get something more from t looking at that picture of Saturns rings or reading through the data concerning the xray output of Jupiter than just scientific edification.

Indeed. But the really amazing, awe-inspiring stuff we've been getting lately (including the stuff you refer to here) is from robots and unmanned probes, not from manned missions. We don't need people to get the whole "my god, it's full of stars" effect. When's the last time you looked at a photo of people bouncing around the ISS or shuttle and thought, "Wow!"? I can't remember. But it hasn't been that long since I saw some Hubble or Cassini picture that I couldn't take my eyes off.

I never implied that you can't or that we don't. But there are spinoffs that we get from manned flight that we wouldn't have otherwise. Look at all the stuff the Apollo program gave us. Yep, including Tang.

That it was worthwhile then doesn't mean it's worthwhile now. Robots then were pretty useless. They are dramatically more capable now, but astronauts have not really changed much. A shift towards robotic exploration and away from manned exploration is natural.

 

[uruk]

That's what I mean by ditch. Leaving them in orbit is abandoning them.

Sorry, My bad.

We don't have cheap mass lift capability right now. Cheaper, maybe, but not cheap. Not by a long shot. Even if you can manufacture the vehicle for manned flight cheaply (and we can't), the simple per-pound price of putting anything into space is still huge, and will remains so for some time. The best way to bring it down is to get more practice putting more pounds into space. And we can put more pounds into space more cheaply, with more payoff, with robots than with manned vehicles.

There are things other than weight that makes manned space flight expensive (life support radiation protection). And other issues to address with biology and psychology that can't be done with robots.
And at any rate the push is to make most use of weight on the robotic probe anyway.
Make them lighter and do more. So what is being done in lift capability is the opposite.

When they have a purpose which can't be accomplished with robots which is worth spending the price premium on.

Again Science for science sake is ok when it applies to probes but not humans? The hard benefits from manned space flights are long term to be sure. But if you keep putting it off you never get to start. And again we have never stopped robotic exploration of space. We have only gotten back to manned flights within the last two decades.

We are learning things about Saturn. The only thing we learn from putting men in space is what happens to men in space. Where's the excitement in that?

And isn't that part of the point of manned space travel? To see how humans can survive and work in space? Can we live out there? Can we learn to exploit the resources out there rather than depleting them on Earth?
Is what we learn from Saturn any more important than that?
What do we gain from learning more about Saturn? An extra paragraph in an astronomy book? Another awesome looking wallpaper for your desktop? (guilty). A greater understanding of our place in the universe?
Don't we also gain that from manned spaceflight? Discovering our human limitations and capabilities in that environment? Testing ourselves in that challenge?
Maybe we can do some of that cheaper here on Earth and with robots. But where's the excitement in that?

Again, so what? When you have the ability to take your time, it doesn't matter if it takes time.

Hey if you like learning about another country by reading National Geographic that's fine with me. But where's the excitement in that?
What would you give if you could go there yourself and see it with your own eyes instead of a CCD chip.
Why deprive that of humanity?

And yet, that's not what's happened. We've sunk billions on spending the shuttle into space again and again, and frankly, it's done very little. Manned space flight hasn't developed much since the 70's.

There's no denying that the Space shuttle is a boondoggle. The shuttle program started out with a good idea. A completely reusable areodynamic lift vehicle. And then it degenerated to what it is now because of politics.

Manned space flight hasn't devloped that much because it was abandoned for thirty years. Try dropping out of life for thirty years and see what condition your in when you come back in.

Robotic space exploration did not have that setback to contend with. It has had huge head start over manned space flight.

Which will probably be done by robots first.

No doubt.
At this rate, machines will be our only presence in space. And well be cozy here on Earth with all our eggs in one basket, so-to-speak.

It's hardly a limit. In fact, robots have already shown that we can push the limit much further than we can with manned exploration. For the cost of a manned mission to Mars, think of how many moons of Jupiter you could explore.

We can sure push those limits with machines. How about with ourselves? That has no value in human experiance?

Hey if time is not an issue and going slower is ok for robotic missions, then why not wait a little longer on those missions to the moons of Jupiter. Jupiter will still be there and they will never kill robotic exploration.
And we haven't sent people to Mars yet.

Indeed. But the really amazing, awe-inspiring stuff we've been getting lately (including the stuff you refer to here) is from robots and unmanned probes, not from manned missions. We don't need people to get the whole "my god, it's full of stars" effect. When's the last time you looked at a photo of people bouncing around the ISS or shuttle and thought, "Wow!"? I can't remember. But it hasn't been that long since I saw some Hubble or Cassini picture that I couldn't take my eyes off.

That's because that's all we have. Just pictures from robots. Pictures that we could also have gotten from the new generations of ground based Telescopes that arecoming down the line.

And how about those pictures of astronauts exploring on the Moon? That doesn't make you go Wow?
It's been a long while hasn't it?

And those were just the of the "safe" and "boring" parts of the Moon.

How much more "wow" would you get if you looked at Io or the rings of Saturn with your own eyes in orbit? Why deprive Humanity of that?

That it was worthwhile then doesn't mean it's worthwhile now. Robots then were pretty useless. They are dramatically more capable now, but astronauts have not really changed much. A shift towards robotic exploration and away from manned exploration is natural.

Astronauts have intellegence and capabilites that machines won't be have of for quite some time. Machines also lack the ability for us to experiance the location,To really "know" the place as only humans can.

I'm sorry that you do not find the human experiance or capabilities worthwhile.

I don't find it natural at all. History shows that we are explorers. We have to go there. We have to experiance it ourselves. Machines may be our vanguard, but ultimately "we" have to be there.

And I fear humanity's futur will be dismall if we never venture from our home. Or even try.

You can learn alot about a place by reading about it, but you will never understand it till you go there yourself.

 

[rats]

Post gone to that Poll thread...

 

[Jimbo07]

*Snip*

Over to politics...

 

[Ziggurat]

And isn't that part of the point of manned space travel? To see how humans can survive and work in space? Can we live out there? Can we learn to exploit the resources out there rather than depleting them on Earth?

We don't even know what resources are really available out there. The best way to find out is with robots. Hell, even once we know, we'll still have robots doing the searching for more, because their survivability makes them infinitely more suited to the task. Once exploitable resources are discovered with robots, we can start thinking about what it takes to exploit them, but we're so far from that right now that we're not really getting anything out it manned exploration. And even once we get there it will still be such a robot-intensive job that our current robot work will not have been wasted. So robot exploration pays off now and will pay off once we move into space exploitation, but manned missions don't pay off now even if they will at some distant future point. The obvious invesment seems to be robots, then.

Is what we learn from Saturn any more important than that?
What do we gain from learning more about Saturn? An extra paragraph in an astronomy book? Another awesome looking wallpaper for your desktop? (guilty). A greater understanding of our place in the universe?
Don't we also gain that from manned spaceflight?

Not anymore, no, we don't.

Discovering our human limitations and capabilities in that environment?

We already have a decent idea about that. Can you name a single discovery from the past two decades of manned exploration (and Hubble doesn't count) without looking it up? I know I can't.

Testing ourselves in that challenge?

Testing ourselves for the sake of testing ourselves is not a good enough reason. We can do that much more cheaply right here on earth.

Maybe we can do some of that cheaper here on Earth and with robots. But where's the excitement in that?

You weren't excited by the mars rovers? I was.

Hey if you like learning about another country by reading National Geographic that's fine with me. But where's the excitement in that?
What would you give if you could go there yourself and see it with your own eyes instead of a CCD chip.
Why deprive that of humanity?

I'm not depriving humanity of that. I'm depriving a handful of astronauts of that. Most of humanity won't get to experience that firsthand regardless of what we do with the manned space program.

Hey if time is not an issue and going slower is ok for robotic missions, then why not wait a little longer on those missions to the moons of Jupiter. Jupiter will still be there and they will never kill robotic exploration.
And we haven't sent people to Mars yet.

This is a complete misreading of what I mean by taking our time. Missions to mars, even robotic missions, aren't sent every year. The fact that a rover may take a year to do something rather than a week doesn't matter if we can only send one every ten years. If it takes twenty years to prep for a manned mission to mars, the fact that a human can work faster than a robot won't matter if the robot got there fifteen years earlier, and had multiple follow-up probes to expand its work in the same time frame. The constraint on the speed of space exploration is not the speed at which the probes work while on site. That's the point, and why the fact that humans can work faster than robots is irrelevant.

That's because that's all we have. Just pictures from robots. Pictures that we could also have gotten from the new generations of ground based Telescopes that arecoming down the line.

Can't take a picture of the dark side of Saturn from a ground-based telescope.

How much more "wow" would you get if you looked at Io or the rings of Saturn with your own eyes in orbit?

But I don't have that option, and never will, regardless of what we do with manned exploration. An astronaut's eyes are not my own. His eyes are no better than a robot's for me.

Astronauts have intellegence and capabilites that machines won't be have of for quite some time.

Intelligence is irrelevant, because remote control can provide all that's needed in that regard. Capabilities for individual robots are indeed less. But for the same cost AND the same time frame, you can put more robots, with more capabilities in total, than any astronaut.

Machines also lack the ability for us to experiance the location,To really "know" the place as only humans can.

That's great. But the thing is, that kind of knowlege isn't transferable. It's wonderful that astronauts get to experience these things, but really, why should the rest of us pay for them to have those experiences?

 

[Jimbo07]

That's great. But the thing is, that kind of knowlege isn't transferable. It's wonderful that astronauts get to experience these things, but really, why should the rest of us pay for them to have those experiences?

See my post in the social issues section, but a human can provide that emotional impact to others. People often ask astronauts "what's it like in space?" They don't often ask, "can you show me a photo of space?"

 

[uruk]

{snip}

If you wish to continue our discussion, I moved my response to your post over to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96924

Or more precisly here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3094429&postcount=27